$30 a taxpayer, times 300 million taxpayers, is 9 trillion dollars! How much could be done if that was in the free market?!

Pretty much everything you said is wrong. Your math is the only thing I think I'll change your mind about. 30*300Million=9Billion.

I doubt you've ever worked in a large multinational company. If they were the ones in control of space exploration, there wouldn't be any space telescopes, they would be launching from private pacific islands, they would be preventing any startups from joining the industry by patenting everything related to rocket technology. And if 1 company got into a monopoly position, satellite launches would cost as much money as they could bleed from the rest of the world for them.

$30 a taxpayer, times 300 million taxpayers, is 9 trillion dollars! How much could be done if that was in the free market?!

Pretty much everything you said is wrong. Your math is the only thing I think I'll change your mind about. 30*300Million=9Billion.

I doubt you've ever worked in a large multinational company. If they were the ones in control of space exploration, there wouldn't be any space telescopes, they would be launching from private pacific islands, they would be preventing any startups from joining the industry by patenting everything related to rocket technology. And if 1 company got into a monopoly position, satellite launches would cost as much money as they could bleed from the rest of the world for them.

johno

Yes, 9 billion dollars.

The problem is, government is far worse! The reason spaceflight is so expensive is that it has been operated solely by governments. Monopolies can be dealt with through the legal system. Governments, on the other hand, have armies behind them. That's why freedom necessitates the willingness to fight.

And then there is the moral problem. You assume that 'space' is of greater value than freedom. You would steal money from people in order to advance your personal hobby. If you think that space telescopes are worth it, spend the money yourself, and get other people to donate out of their own free will. This is a problem with socialism. It has no concept of philanthropy. It assumes that to get anything done, you have to take money from people forcibly.

_________________“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.” -Anonymous

The problem is, government is far worse! The reason spaceflight is so expensive is that it has been operated solely by governments. Monopolies can be dealt with through the legal system. Governments, on the other hand, have armies behind them. That's why freedom necessitates the willingness to fight.

It's not just your math skills that are 3 orders of magnitude out of sync with reality. Let's pretend for a second that your version of utopia exists. Who would have the armies you mentioned, if unelected corporations possessed all the rockets in the world and governments had none? The legal system of which country is going to tackle a massive corporation with privately owned islands, the only orbital capable rockets on the planet, and plenty of assets in space stations? My guess is that those companies would easily find a way to prevent any government control of their actions. As an example, Microsoft has been abusing a monopoly for over 20 years without any effective legal controls.

Back to the real world: Who is stopping anyone from setting up a private space research company? Several people have done it and you are free to set one up yourself if you want to. If private enterprise is so great at doing space research, where is the evidence? I think that in 50-100 years private industry will be reaping the rewards of todays national research agencies and we will have a thriving economy in cislunar space. Hopefully at that point the government agencies will be investing in interstellar probes. Governments will have to take on that role, because there's no company in existence that will invest capital in a research project that won't see any data returned for at least 50 years. If you want historical evidence of the usefulness of government exploration programs, look to the great explorers of the 15th and 16th centuries. Sure, there were serious consequences for the inhabitants of the lands they discovered but the world as we know it today wouldn't exist otherwise. And fwiw Israel wouldn't exist without the British Empire.

SuperShuki wrote:

And then there is the moral problem. You assume that 'space' is of greater value than freedom. You would steal money from people in order to advance your personal hobby. If you think that space telescopes are worth it, spend the money yourself, and get other people to donate out of their own free will. This is a problem with socialism. It has no concept of philanthropy. It assumes that to get anything done, you have to take money from people forcibly.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that space was more important than freedom. If I did, it would have been a false dichotomy. There is no choice to make between one and the other. Space is not a personal hobby for me, although I am interested in the results of space research. For all their faults, governments do a lot of stuff that benefits their citizens in different ways. My country has a very good public health service, which my taxes go towards paying for. However I have not had to avail of any of their services during the last decade. Should I complain about that and insist that the health service be abolished? I don't have children either, should I insist that the public education system be abolished, since the people with children are clearly stealing from me. I don't own a boat, should I insist that the public works done on our waterways be abolished since I don't benefit directly from them every day? I think I'm done destroying your argument.

The very same internet that you are using to spout your nonsense about the futility of government research programs wouldn't exist without DARPA. I think you are anti-science in general. You have displayed a lack of understanding of basic scientific principles in other threads. You have also displayed an unwillingness to learn anything about science or space technology. I'm paraphrasing here, but I remember you saying something like "I couldn't be bothered googling the information or doing the math because I can just ask a question and someone else will do it for me". Is that not similar to the theft of taxes that you accused me of earlier? You previously started another thread about freedom versus science which you then warped into a theological discussion about the ancient scriptures and the nature of deities. I believe you started this thread with the intention of doing the same thing again, and I'm done wasting my time on you. (and your obnoxious signature)

The reason spaceflight is so expensive is that it has been operated solely by governments.

Rather, the reason spaceflight is operated solely by governments (not true) is because it is so expensive.

We are moving out of that phase now thanks to the massive subsidy of R&D by the worlds governments. Technology has advanced far enough now that commercial satellite companies can by launch space assets via private launch companies and operate a business model that closes.

If you are referring to me, I didn't get angry, although I do find you to be obnoxious. I have already explained why, but you don't seem to read all the way through a post before you reply to it. Now I'm simply giving up on trying to reason with you. My reasons for this are:

1) You apparently don't want to learn anything new that doesn't come from a book that is more than 2000 years old. And written in Hebrew.

2) You have demonstrated and stated that you are lazy and want other people on the internet to do things for you without compensation.

3) You seem to be taking point 2 to the next level by wanting people in the real world to stop taxing you. I believe that this is so that you can work less, maintain your current standard of living, and post more rubbish on the internet.

4) You constantly contradict yourself, in one post you talk about people fighting for their freedom, in the next post you pretend that you aren't allowed to reply. Did somebody take away Shukis freedom? I think it's more likely you are too lazy to try to respond. Freedom fighter my ass.

5) You opened this topic with a question, indicating that you didn't know the answer. When people answered your question with facts, you attacked their answers using your opinions and ignored the facts. Talking to you is a complete waste of time.

Not that his "freedom" was removed, as this is a private website, not part of a government , but he was asked to no longer talk about his religion, as he used it in earlier discussions without respect to others (more like his way or the highway).This was triggered by his comments at:viewtopic.php?f=16&t=4861

Or as you pointed out: (I can't agree more)

Quote:

5) You opened this topic with a question, indicating that you didn't know the answer. When people answered your question with facts, you attacked their answers using your opinions and ignored the facts. Talking to you is a complete waste of time.

he was asked to no longer talk about his religion, as he used it in earlier discussions without respect to others

Ok, I know a little about his history. I just don't get why he thinks he isn't allowed to reply to me because of that. I don't think I touched the subject of religion at all in my reply. I talked about corporate control of space assets, the benefits and side effects of government research programs, the ways in which not all government spending benefits all the citizens equally and Shukis inability to understand the answers others give him to his questions. Surely he could respond to some parts of that without telling us what his rabbi thinks. I think it's an excuse so that he can still pretend to himself that he is right.

I wasn't talking about my freedom, I was talking about freedom as it relates to government and the free market. I was looking for answers, and am- but I am looking for answers that are based on the fundamental understanding that the free market is the right place to progress economically and technologically, not in government. Reasons (as I have mentioned) that I would consider plausible for government space programs are, for example, national pride or national public relations. I am looking for answers based on national self interest, not individual or group interests. I am sorry if I haven't made that clear.

_________________“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.” -Anonymous

About my not replying, sigurd sent me a message that I was about to be booted permanently. For this thread, not about talking about God. The problem is, I don't know why!

The PM I sent, was related to your posts at the micro space section, which got removed, because they contained nothing else than gibberish, not even actual content, beside challenging that others were saying "god".

Before you work in most countries, you know ahead of time what the laws are, and that you will be taxed. If you go ahead and work after acknowledging those conditions then you have voluntarily agreed to abide by them. Nobody is 'forcing' you to work. If you don't want to work under those rules most countries are happy for you to sit on welfare.

We will carry you.

Alternatively you could emigrate to any number of countries or regions with no taxes and work there.

Would you still be opposed to Nasa if it was being funded out of a Soverign Wealth Fund?

I don't have a problem with taxes per se, or Nasa or government per se. My problem is the reason behind government spending. If a government is acting or spending money for reasons of national interest, that's ok. But if a government is spending money for the interests of a particular individual or group of individuals, then I have a big problem with it. GPS, for example, was a national interest. It was in the interest of the United States' national defense. Can the same be said about NASA? Perhaps it can. But what I've read on this forum are not arguments for NASA per se, but rather technological developments that developed as byproducts of NASA.If technology is the function of government space agencies, why not just invest directly in technology on the free market? Obviously then, the primary purpose of government space agencies is space. So again, how is spending money on space a national interest?

_________________“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.” -Anonymous